Return a bounded recent on-chain activity sample for a small named Bitcoin entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| entity_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| endpoint | Yes | ||
| status_code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Maximum recent activity rows to return."Input schema / properties / since / descriptionRemoved value: -"Only include entity activity at or after this ISO timestamp or relative window value."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum recent activity rows to return."Input schema / properties / since / descriptionAdded value: +"Only include entity activity at or after this ISO timestamp or relative window value."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only adds 'bounded' and 'small named entity,' which is vague. It does not mention rate limits, error conditions, whether activity includes transactions and/or balances, or what 'bounded' concretely means (e.g., limit or time range).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is so sparse that it fails to provide valuable detail, and the structure does not incrementally reveal scope or constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the tool has no annotations and the description is minimal. It doesn't clarify what 'activity' includes, what 'small' means, or how the 'since' and 'limit' parameters interact. The description is incomplete for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (entity_name, limit, since). The schema itself only provides titles, so the agent has no additional semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a distinct resource ('recent on-chain activity sample for a small named Bitcoin entity'), which clearly distinguishes it from address- or entity-lookup tools. However, 'bounded' is vague and not fully defined, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like entity_lookup or wallet_summary. The phrase 'recent activity sample' implies a quick-scope use case, but no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.